Patellar resurfacing versus retention in cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty.

Aims: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the influence of patellar resurfacing following cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on the incidence of anterior knee pain, knee-specific patient-reported outcome measures, complication rates, and reoperation rates. Methods: A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) according to search criteria. Search terms used included: arthroplasty, replacement, knee (Mesh), TKA, prosthesis, patella, patellar resurfacing, and patellar retaining. RCTs that compared patellar resurfacing versus unresurfaced in primary TKA were included for further analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network assessment tool for quality and minimization of bias. Data were synthesized and meta-analysis performed. Results: There were 4,135 TKAs (2,068 resurfaced and 2,027 unresurfaced) identified in 35 separate cohorts from 33 peer-reviewed studies. Anterior knee pain rates were significantly higher in unresurfaced knees overall (odds ratio (OR) 1.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 2.83; p = 0.006) but more specifically associated with CR implants (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.52; p = 0.030). There was a significantly better Knee Society function score (mean difference (MD) -1.98; 95% CI -1.1 to -2.84; p < 0.001) and Oxford Knee Score (MD -2.24; 95% CI -0.07 to -4.41; p = 0.040) for PS implants when patellar resurfacing was performed, but these differences did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference for these scores. There were no significant differences in complication rates or infection rates according to implant design. There was an overall significantly higher reoperation rate for unresurfaced TKA (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.06); p = 0.030) but there was no difference between PS or CR TKA. Conclusion: Patellar resurfacing, when performed with CR implants, resulted in lower rates of anterior knee pain and, when used with a PS implant, yielded better knee-specific functional outcomes. Patellar resurfacing was associated with a lower risk of reoperation overall, but implant type did not influence this.

Patellar resurfacing was not associated with a clinically significant advantage when a modern patellar friendly total knee arthroplasty is employed: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Modern total knee arthroplasty (TKA) femoral components are designed to provide a more optimal articular surface for the patella whether or not it has been resurfaced. Previous systematic reviews comparing outcomes of patellar resurfacing and no resurfacing combine both historic and modern designs. AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of patellar resurfacing in modern "patellar friendly" implants on (1) incidence of anterior knee pain, (2) patient reported outcomes (3) complication rates, and (4) reoperation rates compared with unresurfaced patellae in primary TKA. METHODS: MEDline, PubMed and google scholar studies were evaluated using SIGN assessment tool and data analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.2 on only randomised controlled trials. The search terms were: arthroplasty, replacement, knee (Mesh), TKA, prosthesis, patella, patellar resurfacing, patellar retaining. RESULTS: Thirty-two randomised controlled studies were identified that reported the type of TKA implant used: 11 used modern "patellar friendly" implants; and 21 older "patellar non-friendly" implants. Among "patellar friendly" TKAs there were no significant differences in anterior knee pain rates between resurfaced and unresurfaced groups. Patellar resurfacing with "patellar friendly" implants had significantly higher clinical (mean difference (MD) -0.77, p = 0.007) and functional (MD -1.87, p < 0.0001) knee society scores (KSS) than unresurfaced counterparts but these did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Resurfacing with "patellar friendly" implants was not associated with a significant (p = 0.59) difference in the Oxford knee score (OKS), in contrast when a "patellar non-friendly" implant was used there was a significant difference (MD 3.3, p = 0.005) in favour of resurfacing. There was an increased risk of reoperation for unresurfaced TKAs with "non-patellar friendly" implants (Odds ratio (OR) 1.68, 95% CI 1.03-2.74, p = 0.04), but not for unresurfaced patellae with "patellar friendly" implants (OR 1.17, CI 0.59-2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Patellar resurfacing in combination with a modern patellar friendly implant was not associated with a lower rate of anterior knee pain, complications, or reoperations compared to not resurfacing, nor did it give a clinically significant improvement in knee specific function. In contrast patellar resurfacing in combination with a "non-friendly" TKA implant was associated with a significantly better OKS and lower reoperation rate. Implant design should be acknowledged when patellar resurfacing is being considered.